|
United States47024 Posts
On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
The main point is that that [the gas mechanic variation] type of solution has a purpose beyond "make the player click more".
This type of "speed boost if manually ordered" has been brought up before, I'm almost certain, and it's just not gonna fly with most people. There really is no point in including automine if to be competitive you HAVE TO ignore it. People are gonna hate it. I hate it.
Therein lies the problem, I guess. How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)?
On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Can you see Tasteless explaining this type of mechanic while casting? It's not a result of skilled players clicking faster and getting an advantage because they are able to do something more effeciently - it's a mechanic designed purely to make you click. It's just way, waaay too artifical for my liking.
There has to be strategy involved, there has to be a trade-off somewhere. This is more of a "click this button or you lose" type deal, which really belongs more in an arcade game.
Even if its not explicitly mentioned, IMO having such a skill is still important. Why? Because even if click through a bunch of units or buildings may not be considered a good skill, multitasking is. It may seem lame for a newbie to lose because he can't click a button faster, but IMO its NOT lame to lose because you multitasked poorly in relation to your opponent. That's a perfectly legitimate skill, even if you think mental skill should be emphasized above physical skill. Multitasking IS a mental skill.
IMO, multitasking is possibly the greatest skill differentiator in all of Starcraft because it differentiates players equally well at all skill levels. Game sense, macro, micro, timing, managing your nerves, all of those have varied degrees of importance across different skill levels, but whether you're a D- newbie, or Kim Taek Yong, having the ability to multitask well can make you stand out at your skill level.
Even if macro mechanics are a bit gimmicky, and a little forced, IMO if they can help encourage multitasking, I'm all for them. I've used the analogy of running in sports before, and I'll do so again. Even though people don't necessarily find running fun, its still ubiquitous across sports because it adds an extra dimension to their play. The mechanic doesn't need to be "fun" or "entertaining" to add to the experience of the game as a whole.
I should point out that my original stance was that I am ok with MBS and automining, but not both. If I would choose to dump one, I would keep MBS and dump automining, since MBS is, IMO, far closer to being RTS convention these days than automining.
|
see why i am so negative//(no problem kenni*and eviltelletubie* im gonna try to help in these topics k?)
definitely turn off or turn on is the way to go
noobs dont mess with pros
pros dont mess with noobs
and there is no boil point savio,what is it, a noob(not you Savio) trying to force me play a game with automine and mbs, i dont want to.
Play your game, your way with your friends, and let me play mine, wtf, isnt it enough that your tumor already took over my game and now want to take over me too ?
/end
|
I do believe that the UI improvements are here to stay; however, Blizzard needs to compromise between being up to date or being an esport, which can be solved by removing features or adding something like you selected. I also don't think we should force Sc2 to be an esport, there's no reason we can't stick with SC:BW, but that's a different story.
Speed Bonus to Workers:
Biggest issue would be just selecting a bunch at once and getting the speed bonus, this would be the biggest problem when you time the speed bonus, because there would be little benefit to using it earlier. The speed bonus would have to be very beneficial though, otherwise even the pros won't feel the need to use it, especially late game. The bonus would have to get progressively more important. You also have to keep in mind that this is very likely to upset casual players just as much as not having automine.
Solution: When a worker comes out, he should have 5 seconds or so to issue the command to move to minerals, if not then he doesn't get the bonus. You could also allow workers to automine if they are not touched after the 5 seconds or something.
Not touching your topic: I'm very against forcing players to do specific things strategy wise. Gas expansions in SC:BW partially govern where a player will expand... Sc2 hasn't developed enough, but I'm worried that Golden Minerals will force players to play in a specific way. This can be solved by map makers, but the point is that I would like to avoid using any methods to increase macro that would force players to do something a specific way.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 18 2008 06:06 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
The main point is that that [the gas mechanic variation] type of solution has a purpose beyond "make the player click more".
This type of "speed boost if manually ordered" has been brought up before, I'm almost certain, and it's just not gonna fly with most people. There really is no point in including automine if to be competitive you HAVE TO ignore it. People are gonna hate it. I hate it. Therein lies the problem, I guess. How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)? Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 04:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Can you see Tasteless explaining this type of mechanic while casting? It's not a result of skilled players clicking faster and getting an advantage because they are able to do something more effeciently - it's a mechanic designed purely to make you click. It's just way, waaay too artifical for my liking.
There has to be strategy involved, there has to be a trade-off somewhere. This is more of a "click this button or you lose" type deal, which really belongs more in an arcade game. Even if its not explicitly mentioned, IMO having such a skill is still important. Why? Because even if click through a bunch of units or buildings may not be considered a good skill, multitasking is. It may seem lame for a newbie to lose because he can't click a button faster, but IMO its NOT lame to lose because you multitasked poorly in relation to your opponent. That's a perfectly legitimate skill, even if you think mental skill should be emphasized above physical skill. Multitasking IS a mental skill. IMO, multitasking is possibly the greatest skill differentiator in all of Starcraft because it differentiates players equally well at all skill levels. Game sense, macro, micro, timing, managing your nerves, all of those have varied degrees of importance across different skill levels, but whether you're a D- newbie, or Kim Taek Yong, having the ability to multitask well can make you stand out at your skill level. Even if macro mechanics are a bit gimmicky, and a little forced, IMO if they can help encourage multitasking, I'm all for them. I've used the analogy of running in sports before, and I'll do so again. Even though people don't necessarily find running fun, its still ubiquitous across sports because it adds an extra dimension to their play. The mechanic doesn't need to be "fun" or "entertaining" to add to the experience of the game as a whole. I should point out that my original stance was that I am ok with MBS and automining, but not both. If I would choose to dump one, I would keep MBS and dump automining, since MBS is, IMO, far closer to being RTS convention these days than automining.
Being good at non-mbs macro can be explained in a positive way, I just CANNOT see a way to explain this ability in a similiar manner.
|
On November 18 2008 06:00 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 05:56 A3iL3r0n wrote:On November 18 2008 05:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:
...
The solution has to be elegant, shouldn't penalize players who don't use it (ie Savio suggested that units you sent to mine via rally points would move slower <- which is what "it makes no sense" was a replay to) anymore than it needs to, and most of all it should serve a purpose other than forcing you to click, because then you might as well just not include automine in the first place.
I'm not sure what that means. In Kenningit's suggestion, you are rewarded for not using the rally points, instead of penalized. In other terms, the suggestion is creating a skill gradient for macro where you are penalized for not being as mechanically proficient which is the correct way to go. He also makes the point that Blizzard is practically forced by the market to have auto-mine in the game, which I think is true. I think his suggestion is very powerful because the idea behind it can be applied to all of the other simplifications in SC2: Devise a way for good players to benefit from not using the automations. .. maybe my post is way more confusing than I think it is, but that part is in reference to what Savio suggested. He suggested, and I paraphrase, that any SCV ordered to mine by means of rally point would become SLOWER than one ordered manually. That sounds like a penalty to me.
Yes, I actually like the penalty idea better. However, it would only be penalty if you chose to rely on it. For pro gamers, it would be just like playing BW in terms of automine anyway.
This is a clear way to include automine for beginners and remove it for pros without relying on a "toggle on/off" switch (which I don't think would happen). Instead of removing it with a switch, it removes it through an incentive program that would only matter to highly skilled players.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 18 2008 06:15 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Being good at non-mbs macro can be explained in a positive way, I just CANNOT see a way to explain this ability in a similiar manner.
Meh, at this point the debate about macro mechanics is getting a bit tiresome. I was hoping that Kennigit's idea would be a decent compromise (requires consistent macro/multitasking at higher level play, but doesn't punish players too harshly for not doing so at low-level play), but apparently even this received flak.
I honestly don't care what they do, but you should need to look at your base to do SOMETHING other than just building new buildings. A game that's only about unit control is a game without multitasking. A game without multitasking is, IMO, a poor RTS.
|
On November 18 2008 06:09 Ki_Do wrote:
and there is no boil point savio,what is it, a noob(not you Savio) trying to force me play a game with automine and mbs, i dont want to.
Play your game, your way with your friends, and let me play mine, wtf, isnt it enough that your tumor already took over my game and now want to take over me too ?
Thats the whole point of this mechanic. It removes automine for highly skilled players and leaves it in for noobs without NEEDING a toggle button. The built in incentive makes pros CHOOSE not to use automine because very slight advantages can help them win the game and they have the dexterity to do so anyway.
Noobs don't lose games cause their probes were temporarily slowed down a TINY bit. They lose games because they failed to expand or didn't build the right units or cause they only have 8 probes in late game.
If you want automine out for pros, then I would think you would favor this mechanic since it does that. And Blizz is NOT going to put a toggle on/off switch in there. This may be your best chance to get what you want.
|
Second the agreement with FA.
On November 18 2008 06:06 TheYango wrote:
How can you have a macro mechanic that differentiates skill without punishing people that don't do it (or rewarding people that do, which is basically the same thing)? Let's consider "No Automine" a macro mechanic. It rewards people who send workers to mine. It punishes people who don't. Haha, no. Seriously, it's more about if it makes sense to the player. Not lore-wise, just how intuitive it is. You were busy doing something and didn't have time to give your workers commands. You lost a few seconds of mining time, it's not so bad, it's your fault, it's fine. You were busy doing something and automine cursed your already mining workers with ensnare. That's lame, it's the fault of the game.
Orb's situational speed boost was the best idea here so far really. You could work with it to get something reasonable for other races. Like, you could remove the passive speed boost from creep and allow overlords or queens or something to either assist the workers with temporary creep area buffs or choose to use them to get stuff to the battlefield faster.
|
On November 18 2008 03:12 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote:
It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you. deleted...will leave this for example
I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist...
First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement.
Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": "Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way.
Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny.
A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" (whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms.
Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least.
I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
|
I dont like the speed increase idea. I think they should go to the patch they are rallied to, wait a couple seconds (depending on balance), and then find a good patch to mine. You're still intentionally breaking the AI though 
to be honest I prefer just getting rid of it all together.
If you are playing players of your skill level, its not going to be a big deal if you cant keep up with telling miners to mine.
I mean if you look at it, starcraft is still tons of fun, even without mbs and automine when you play people that are at your skill level. The fix of how to attract casual players isnt mbs or automine, its a proper matchmaking system. Macro in itself isnt all that tedious or annoying - a noob doesnt do it enough or consistently enough to draw away all their attention from the greater game, and a more experienced player has enough practice and muscle memory for it not to be all that big a deal either.
If we have casual players playing casual players, I think it matters more whether the game is intrinisically fun to play - cool units, gameplay depth, multiple tech trees and viable strategies etc - than on ui improvements.
The claim of pro-auto mine people and pro-mbs people is that including those UI changes, you increase the focus on strategy over mechanics. But if you are playing against people your skill level your mechanics dont have to be perfect, and mechanics dont have to be the center of your play.
tl;dr: proper matchmaking is far more important in enticing casual players than any UI 'improvement'. From a balance standpoint, its equivalent to making the scvs wait before mining...just a different look (you wouldnt HAVE to break the ai, if you coded in a wait command before mining), so the wait imo looks better and makes more sense.
also, there is another complication. If I tell my scv to mine minerals at my opponents base (for scouting or whatever) will they get a speed boost? how long will the boost last if they have to cross the map? How effective will this be in evading units and keeping your scouting scv alive compared to probes or drones?
While this doesnt automatically unbalance it, it does need to be taken into consideration, and having a wait command avoids these things.
also, unless you can somehow code it to only take effect for brand new scvs, you will have progamers microing individual scvs for the speed burst, which increases the skill gap, and just does the opposite of what automine is trying to do (make it easier for a new player to keep up)
|
I sort of agree with onepost, the OP is sort of an desperate artificial solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist and doesn't affect the gameplay as much as you make it sound like it does.
Automining is not what will make or break SC2 as an e-sport game or as a competitive game, never in a million times, therefor small changes such as these doesn't make any real sense in practice and functions for such a minimal part of the game that it would rather be seen as some "BS"-solution put in the game beacuse Blizzard ran out of ideas.
MBS is the real issues when it comes to starcraft 2, not automining - its here to stay.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On November 18 2008 06:13 vsrooks wrote:
Speed Bonus to Workers:
Biggest issue would be just selecting a bunch at once and getting the speed bonus, this would be the biggest problem when you time the speed bonus, because there would be little benefit to using it earlier. The speed bonus would have to be very beneficial though, otherwise even the pros won't feel the need to use it, especially late game. The bonus would have to get progressively more important. You also have to keep in mind that this is very likely to upset casual players just as much as not having automine.
Solution: When a worker comes out, he should have 5 seconds or so to issue the command to move to minerals, if not then he doesn't get the bonus. You could also allow workers to automine if they are not touched after the 5 seconds or something.
I addressed this in the OP. Another potential solution is that the "buff" would be applied X/selection ....so if the buff is 4% speed increase and i select all 40 probes and tell them to move their buff is negligable (1%).
|
The issue of having separate versions is BNET. BNET is going to be a lot different and players competitive and casual will want to take advantage of the AMM and the ease of practicing. BNET will be one way or the other.
Another big issue with BNET in my opinion will be maps. We all know how awful the map choices/rotations are in Wc3 and a lot of that is because of BNET. Players are going to want to play the maps that are being used in the AMM system. It's going to take a LOT of work between KeSPa and Blizzard to make the game work as an esport. That's another topic entirely though, sorry for the rant.
Having automining and MBS together is the biggest issue though and hopefully they can solve it. Another issue is that whatever Blizzard does it needs to be either really cool to casuals like this idea(I'm sure they'll love the idea of SCV morale and extra glowy stuff) or it needs to fly under the radar.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On November 18 2008 06:39 Senx wrote:
I sort of agree with onepost, the OP is sort of an desperate artificial solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist and doesn't affect the gameplay as much as you make it sound like it does.
Automining is not what will make or break SC2 as an e-sport game or as a competitive game, never in a million times, therefor small changes such as these doesn't make any real sense in practice and functions for such a minimal part of the game that it would rather be seen as some "BS"-solution put in the game beacuse Blizzard ran out of ideas.
MBS is the real issues when it comes to starcraft 2, not automining - its here to stay.
Here ill just say it. 10 TL staff have played SC2 and we all individually came to the conclusion that MBS is fine (and in most cases that Automine is atrocious in its current form). So this is wrong.
|
On November 18 2008 06:31 onepost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 03:12 Kennigit wrote:
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote:
It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you. deleted...will leave this for example I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist... First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement. Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": " Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way. Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny. A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" ( whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms. Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least. I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
You still did not address the mechanic in a way that added to the discussion. See FA's criticism of the mechanic and Chill's reservations. They added to the discussion. This was a very wordy "one-liner".
On another note, I am interested to hear someone who disagrees to address my statement that this mechanic is essentially a way of removing automine for pros while leaving it in for new players without the use of a "toggle on/off" button. Isn't this the best of both worlds?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
On November 18 2008 06:31 onepost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 18 2008 03:12 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote +
I'd like to hear feedback on this issue. If you don't agree with it, i would like a detailed explanation why - "gimicky" does is NOT acceptable. I would like a deep discussion and because i can abuse mod powers ill just delete a crap 1 line post LOL.
Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 02:58 onepost wrote:
It's a non-solution to a non-problem. Please everyone quit forecasting that the sky will fall and hordes of n00bz will swarm us over should workers no longer need to be told the obvious. Thank you. deleted...will leave this for example I wanted to spare your sensibilities but if you insist... First, you don't make a convincing case that there is anything to fix or improve, and neither did anyone before you. In fact, the beginning of your article looks like a boring string of quoted or otherwise emphasized buzzwords like "good", "solution", "competitive", "issues", "rewarded", "investigation" and "positive", that I assume is supposed to mesmerize the reader into believing that there is something relevant to improve in a thoughtful and constructive manner, but at least with me it fails miserably. Hence the non-problem statement. Then you don't make a convincing case that your "solution" solves the non-problem. I'll give you credit for burying into formalities, but in the end your effort falls flat. You could remove all but this one sentence which sums up your "solution": " Add perks to automine." This is old, bland, and uncreative. And negative (!!!) by the way. Adding meaningless clicks is only meant to relieve the existential anxiety of high-APM players, not to improve the game in any way. Then I'm afraid you don't make a good job of explaining your "solution" to begin with. It looks like a management or macroeconomics textbook (in a most direct sense, by the way), in which they struggle at justifying the unjustifiable with tedious rhetoric. I'll translate your "solution" in my own, far more simple language: have the players whip the workers so that they don't slack off. At the very least, if you had suggested that we boost workers with electrochocs and adrenaline shots, I would have had a good laugh, but this dilbertesque motivation? sense of pride and responsibility? Come on. It's not even funny. A comparison even more pertinent than management and macroeconomics would be Intelligent Design. Creationists anxious about teH 3v0lUtI0n but failing to make an even remotely rational case (because they can't, it's all about their Holy Bible) repackaged their hysterical nonsense, in an attempt to render their agenda less transparent, into something that somewhat looks like a science. But that hardly fooled anybody, because all they managed to accomplish with their empty "positive" rhetoric was to turn around the bush with not-so-subtle anti-evolution bashing, pointing out non-problems (holes) into the theory that "nothing in particular" ( whistles...) was somehow magically supposed to fix. Hence their failure at convincing judges (or anybody but converts) that their creationism turned non-science should be taught in science classrooms. Last, but not least, you appended Chill's objections to your post, which is self-defeating. If there was any hope left of deceiving anybody into believing that your new mechanics make any sense or serve any purpose, by the time they're done reading his comment (and he's quite direct and crude, by the way), it's gone. I really had a good laugh reading that part, at the very least. I'd like to be more "positive" about your article and contribute to the deep discussion that you expect, but honestly I can't. It's a poor idea, poorly presented, and poorly written. I expect better from someone aiming at telling industry leader Blizzard Entertainment how to improve their stuff.
I never said i was right. I said it was a potential solution and that i wanted discussion about the pros and cons. By page 2 we already modifictions and even better or simpler suggestions. It's not about my OP or presenting some masters thesis. You are in a very small minority on this site that feels that automining isn't an issue - it is. All the progamers, top amateurs, staff, and high level thinking players note that it is a serious issue when the management of resources is automated so i don't care if you think its an issue. I'm not justifying the argument because its been argued and agreed upon for months. All i want is potential solutions from the core group of people who have issue with it an encourage some discussion. If you don't think there's a problem then don't post in this thread.
|
On November 18 2008 06:36 fusionsdf wrote:
to be honest I prefer just getting rid of it all together.
The problem is that that is almost surely not gonna happen. If we are purist about it then we could end up like the (forgive the political analogy) GOP who couldn't decide between Romney and Huckabee so they just ended up with McCain. If we shoot down decent compromises, then we will probably end up with the current version of automine. Would that be better for SC2 than this mechanic?
Wishing for automine to just be gone altogether would be like me wishing that Reagan would come back from the dead and be the GOP nominee. It allows me to be a "purist" but it just isn't gonna happen.
|
On November 18 2008 06:39 Senx wrote:
I sort of agree with onepost, the OP is sort of an desperate artificial solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist and doesn't affect the gameplay as much as you make it sound like it does.
Automining is not what will make or break SC2 as an e-sport game or as a competitive game, never in a million times, therefor small changes such as these doesn't make any real sense in practice and functions for such a minimal part of the game that it would rather be seen as some "BS"-solution put in the game beacuse Blizzard ran out of ideas.
MBS is the real issues when it comes to starcraft 2, not automining - its here to stay.
in my opinion, automine is much, much worse for competitive play than MBS. with MBS on and automine off, you still have to go back to your base and tell scvs to mine, and it is a really good skill gradient...you are much more effective if you tell each scv to mine when its produced, then if you come back every 5th scv and tell those 5 scvs to start mining...
I mean we already have an idle scv key, isnt automine on top of that a little bit of overkill?
|
On November 18 2008 06:53 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2008 06:36 fusionsdf wrote:
to be honest I prefer just getting rid of it all together.
The problem is that that is almost surely not gonna happen. If we are purist about it then we could end up like the (forgive the political analogy) GOP who couldn't decide between Romney and Huckabee so they just ended up with McCain. If we shoot down decent compromises, then we will probably end up with the current version of automine. Would that be better for SC2 than this mechanic? Wishing for automine to just be gone altogether would be like me wishing that Reagan would come back from the dead and be the GOP nominee. It allows me to be a "purist" but it just isn't gonna happen.
well to be honest, I have pretty much given up hope of mbs being changed. But automine is a pretty easy coding change, and I havent heard nearly as many positive responses from people whose opinion I respect that played the game as I have with MBS. So if its a problem in beta, I still think it has a decent shot of being changed.
MBS, not so much
|
I am a hard-core pro-MBS guy. I fought the "good fight" when the early MBS debate was going on to keep it.
Yet, even I, see that automine is a problem in its current form. So it is definitely an issue that needs to be discussed.
I also don't think that there is a chance in heck that Blizzard is going to remove it completely. They have already stated that they are going to keep up with RTS standards. So the best we can go with is a modified form of automine.
This is the best recommendation I have heard so far because it essentially removes automine, but only from competitive play (Chris Sigaty's Mom can still use automine).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
